What does the Bible really say about heterosexual marriage and homosexuality?
- Jul 31, 2007 - 41
The evangelical Christian community leads efforts to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose acceptance of homosexuality for one primary reason—biblical revelation. For those who believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God there is no confusion about the proper definition of marriage or the immorality of homosexuality.
The biblical basis for understanding God’s intention for marriage is found in Genesis 2. The human race began with the creation of a heterosexual couple—Adam and Eve. The creation of Adam and Eve (male and female) was the foundation of human civilization and their union the first marriage. Genesis 2:24 states: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh. Marriage is an institution of God designed as a lifelong covenant relationship between a man and woman (Matt. 19:1-6).
God’s command to Adam and Eve was “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). God’s design for procreation demanded the union of a man and woman. This is another indication that God’s intention for marriage was exclusively a heterosexual union.
The Bible declares all sexual activity outside of the marriage relationship to be sexual immorality. Homosexuality is first mentioned in biblical history in the story of the angelic visitors who came to Lot in Sodom (Gen. 19:1-25). The principal sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom was homosexuality (Gen. 19:5-6). Homosexuality is condemned in the Mosaic Law as “detestable” and was punishable by death (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).
The New Testament also clearly identifies homosexuality as immorality. Jesus’ statement, “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17), indicated His agreement with all moral laws of the Mosaic Law including the laws prohibiting homosexuality. His statements on marriage and divorce in Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-9 revealed His agreement with the definition of marriage as a lawful bond between a man and woman for life.
The Apostle Paul confronted a secular culture where homosexuality was accepted and endorsed by influential writers and leaders. In contrast to the acceptance of homosexuality by many in the first century A.D., Paul referred to the practice as “sexual impurity,” “unnatural,” “shameless acts,” and “perversion” (Rom. 1:24-27). Paul included “homosexuals” among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Homosexuality is also included in a list of sins in 1 Timothy 1:10.
Liberal scholars have attempted at least three forms of attacks upon the biblical condemnation of homosexuality. Some have openly taken issue with the veracity of Scripture and treat the modern acceptance of homosexuality as “new truth” superior to scriptural revelation. Others have attempted to use a distorted definition of “love” to justify homosexual relationships. Still others assert that some people are born with homosexual tendencies and that God is therefore responsible and approving of homosexuality.
People are born with a sin nature that manifests itself in many expressions of rebellion against God. God is not to be blamed for our sinful choices. He sent His Son to deliver us from the penalty and the practice of sin—including homosexuality.
Christians have an opportunity to be salt and light by taking a stand for the biblical definition of marriage and upholding its condemnation of homosexuality.
Hal Lane is pastor of West Side Baptist Church in Greenwood, South Carolina, and chairman of the trustees of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Marriage, Sexual Purity, Homosexuality
41 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Jul 31st, 2007, at 3:29pm, James McClintock wrote:
And what wisdom can be offered to a young couple who have not engaged in a legal marriage commitment but claim the are committed as husband and wife by their own commitment to the Lord? And how about an older couple who were married in a church ceremony but have not filed their marriage with the state? These aren’t tests, just the realities where I live.
2 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 6:01am, Dan Valdes wrote:
The good reverend Lane states “Homosexuality is condemned in the Mosaic Law as “detestable” and was punishable by death (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).”
Is there anything to add? Did St. Paul encounter gay people in the way we know them today? When did the term homosexual first appear in the English language Rev. Lane? What does the original Greek text say? There was no word for homosexual then, so what was it exactly? What did the original King James say?
When did you decide to become heterosexual Reverend? What was that process like for you? Do you need to reaffirm it regularly or does it come naturally? Have you always felt heterosexual? Does it run in your family? Did you have good relationships with your father or do you think you learned it from you mother?
Dan Valdes
3 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 8:26am, Rev. Steve Jacobson wrote:
There really isn’t any question about what the Bible says about heterosexual marriage and homosexuality. The only question to answer is “Do I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, or do I reject those teaching with which I disagree as being affected by the societal mores of the writer’s day?”
When you begin questioning what the Bible says about homosexuality by whether or not the word “homosexual” is used in Scripture you ignore the clear language of Scripture. When Paul wrote in Romans 1 that “God gave them up to ‘vile affections...’ the words in the original literally mean “shameful passions, to dishonor or disgrace; The soul’s diseased condition from various lusts spring.” The next verse describes what Paul meant, “men with men leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly.”
There is little doubt about what the Scripture is speaking, only whether or not we accept it as absolute truth.
4 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 8:32am, Ethel Stewart wrote:
As a follower of Jesus Christ, I have never understood why people argue and debate whether it was ever God’s plan for two men or two women to be joined together as husband and wife. I believe the Bible and practice its precepts. It is a no brainer for me. So what is there to discuss? God has given every person free will. That free will comes with consequences. So, do what you want. Just be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions. I have two kids that I love dearly and will always love. They are gay. They know what the Bible says, yet they have chosen to do their own thing. As long as they know what the consequences are, it is their choice and their choice alone to continue to practice their gay lifestyle. They just can’t do it in my home; one of the consequences, or in my presence; another consequence. Do I love them? Sure do. Will I always love them? Sure will. Do I continue to pray for them? Always.
5 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 9:00am, Rich Allcorn wrote:
Homosexuality has been shoved down our throats in a constant fashion so as to make it “commonplace” in the public view. Take notice and learn. Every movie that you now watch has, at the very least, one homosexual scene in it. This is to program our morals to “accept” this as a normal, everyday practice.
God’s Word is very clear on the matter:
Lev 20:13 (NASB) “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
God destroyed Sodom because of this sin! Its no small secret how He feels about it! Consider this: “IF”, we were to began to push and push child pornography upon the movie audiences ... subtle at first, but then more and more, don’t you think it would one day become as the homosexual lifestyle is today - commonly accepted, with “rights” to exist where there were once laws making the mere acts illegal?
6 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 9:07am, Jay Rowe wrote:
Sodomy is in the Greek text and it has the same meaning as homosexual.
What can be said about Rev 21:8
I believe that all sin is equal in the eyes of God. I also believe that some sins will take us further into sin than others.
If there were any place in the scriptures that said that it is not a sin to be gay than you can be sure that the evangelicals would back off. However, there is text after text that state how horrible it is, it is listed with murder, idolatry, etc.
As long as you have a pulse you can be forgiven. God loves you and sent His son Jesus to die for all sins. If you will repent and turn from your sins admitting that you are a sinner than God is willing to forgive your sins and give you the gift of eternal life. Then get involved in a church that teaches the inerrant Word of God. Get a Bible and begin to read, the book of John is a great start.
Jay Rowe
7 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 9:20am, Matt wrote:
RE: Dan’s post #2 and Rev. Jacobson’s post #3.
Rev. Jacobson raises an interesting question for us Dan when he says,
Based on some of your (Dan) prior posts to ERLC.com, I take it you have more than a mere working knowledge of Scripture. With considerable confidence, you once referenced at length verses which speak to our status as believers: God’s child, Christ’s Friend, chosen and appointed, free from any charge, personal witness (your wording). You affirmed these statements using quite a number of New Testament passages including John, 1&2;Cor, Acts, Matt, Rom, Phil, and Eph (at least 4 NT authors as my count).
Now, my question to you is this: (I’ll ask the same question 3 different ways.)
What is your method for choosing which Scriptures you affirm and which scriptures to deny? I hope you can understand my confusion as you’ve both affirmed and denied passages from the same book (Romans… denied Chap 1, affirmed Chap 8).
In other words, if you take the position that the passages regarding homosexuality are wrong, on what do you base your confidence in any of the Scriptures that speak to believers’ status as “God’s child”, “can to all things through Christ”, “citizen of Heaven,” etc? (Again, your words.)
At the risk of over doing the same basic question: How would you (as a Christian) explain the Gospel to a nonbeliever? If you believe that ‘Scripture A’ is wrong, errant, or limited to the author’s social setting, why should the nonbeliever choose to believe ‘Scripture B’?
8 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 9:42am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Ms. Stewart says “I have two kids that I love dearly and will always love. They are gay. They know what the Bible says, yet they have chosen to do their own thing. As long as they know what the consequences are, it is their choice and their choice alone to continue to practice their gay lifestyle. They just can’t do it in my home; one of the consequences, or in my presence; another consequence”
My dear lady...being gay has less to do with one of your sons kissing another man than it does with his feelings inside. (or a girl if they are lesbians) But no one is making choices here. Being gay is not a choice.
He’s gay in your home when he visits and was gay in your home when you raised him. It’s a great opportunity for you to enrich yourself and learn more about human sexuality and attraction, please don’t waste it.
Dan Valdes
9 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 9:48am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Jay Rowe says “Sodomy is in the Greek text and it has the same meaning as homosexual.”
You might want to check into that sir, I think you are mistaken. I am concerning my focus here on the Pauline letters.
Respectfully,
Dan Valdes
10 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 10:34am, Pastor Rich Allcorn wrote:
Being “GAY” is a choice. Thoughts meditated on, beliefs, and principles, are not “hard-wired” ... they are “choices”. If you can “choose” to have desires for little children, or animals, (Bible addresses also) why not the choice to be gay? It - is - a - choice. Your “actions” are always a choice, right or wrong.
11 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 10:40am, Pastor Rich Allcorn wrote:
(continued)
Sin is never acceptable to man. But when it is given in small doses, it poisons the judgement and moral character of a nation. Take this example and learn, for a frog if placed in boiling hot water will immediately jump out. He quickly recognizes the dilemma. BUT, if the water is turned up, slowly, over time ... to allow him to adjust, he will surely be on someone’s dinner plate before nightfall. And so it is with sin. The wall of conscience has to be torn down, bit by bit, so a man or woman will accept what is otherwise detestable to them. Homosexuality is no different.
God loves the sinner. The sin, however, is an altogether different matter. Take time to consider this before you react. Listen ... and learn.
John 8:31-32
http://www.wordchurch.info
12 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 10:48am, Jay Rowe wrote:
James 1:13-15 (NKJV)
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
Being gay is just as much a choice as robbing a store.
We are tempted by Satan, never God, when we are drawn away by our own desires and enticed.
Do you believe that God would convict one of His children who have fallen into the sin of Homosexuality?
13 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 11:00am, Jay Rowe wrote:
Mr. Valdes,
Thank you for reading my comment. When I wrote on Sodomy I was going by the definition of Sodomy as one who practices sodomy; unnatural sexual intercourse, especially that between two males. These English words are derived from SODOM, an ancient city in the land of Canaan noted for such depraved activities.
All the men of Sodom came to Lot’s house, demanding that he allow them to have sexual relations with two people inside(Gen 19:5) but Lot refused. The next day Lot escaped from Sodom and God destroyed the city because of its great sin. Sodomy was prohibited by the law of Moses (Deut. 23:17) and condemned by Paul (Rom 1:27; 1Cor 6:9).
14 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 11:17am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Pastor Rich Allcorn wrote:
Being “GAY” is a choice. Thoughts meditated on, beliefs, and principles, are not “hard-wired” ... they are “choices”. If you can “choose” to have desires for little children, or animals, (Bible addresses also) why not the choice to be gay? It - is - a - choice. Your “actions” are always a choice, right or wrong.
But Pastor being gay is not just about actions it’s deeper and more comples than that. When and how did you decide to become heterosexual? Reflect upon that and you might get more understanding into what I mean about being gay is not just about actions.
Best,
Dan Valdes
15 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 11:56am, Pastor Rich Allcorn wrote:
One does not “decide” to be heterosexual any more than one decides to be a human being. We are born that way. It is the natural order of our creation, for reproduction. Cells in our body also reproduce. But, when some of those cells choose to go beyond the natural order of their design, they begin to destroy the body. We call this “Cancer”.
Homosexuality destroys the body as well. We can discuss medical findings, and mans opinion all day long, but when it all boils down ... we have people - our brothers and sisters (brothers mostly) who are dying - dying because of this lifestyle of choice. They are dying both physically, and more importantly ... spiritually.
I don’t hate homosexuals any more than I hate a drunk, but I want to see them “free” of that entanglement. It will destroy them - both in this life and in the one to come.
16 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 12:24pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Pastor Rich Allcorn wrote:
One does not “decide” to be heterosexual any more than one decides to be a human being.
But he can’t apply that same reasoning to homosexuality. To me it appears like a closed bigoted mind.
Since we are talking human sexuality it stands to reason that the development of his sexuality could provide insight into the development of others sexuality but perhaps the glass doesn’t focus both ways for him.
17 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 12:27pm, Rev. Steve Jacobson wrote:
One additional comment from me. If homosexuality is not a choice, but the way one is born, what kind of God condemns a person for that which he cannot help? Does God also condemn someone for being a redhead? Does God condemn someone for being born male or female? Condemnation deals only with the choices we make. While the desire may be affected by many things, acting upon those feelings is a choice which God CLEARLY condemns
18 On Aug 1st, 2007, at 1:23pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Rev. Steve Jacobson wrote:
One additional comment from me. If homosexuality is not a choice, but the way one is born, what kind of God condemns a person for that which he cannot help?”
That is my point EXACTLY Rev. Steve. I could not have said it better.
19 On Aug 3rd, 2007, at 7:25am, Jimmy wrote:
i am an adult male who was sexually abused from the age of five, by a relative, this abuse which lasted into my early adult life has caused me so much pain.
I dont know if it was because of this or from some genetic mix up that I see myself as gay.
I so much want to be Christian, but all I find in the church is hate, very little love.
I can stay away from the gay bars, clubs etc., But I can not hide from myself. From the inner thoughts that cause so much confusion.
One part of me wants to be Christian but the “ Christians” dont want me part of their church.
I recognize I am a sinner and ask Jesus to be my saviour. Is it possible for me to one day wake up straight.
Please pray for me....Jimmy
20 On Aug 3rd, 2007, at 9:06am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Jimmy,
It’s very possible to be gay and Christian. (Google gay Christians for more info)
You can be an fully integrated human being. Why not look at a United Church of Christ or United Methodist affirming congregation?
Not everyone sees this issue the way the SBC does. In fact, not all Baptists see this issue the way the SBC does.
There are MANY Christians that won’t judge you but will simply love and affirm you as the wonderful child of God that you are.
I am praying for you. Just be yourself. God wants you to be happy.
Dan Valdes
21 On Aug 3rd, 2007, at 12:17pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Jimmy asks “ Is it possible for me to one day wake up straight?”
It’s highly unlikely. Find a church that will accept and affirm you in love Jimmy. There are an abundance of them out there.
22 On Aug 3rd, 2007, at 1:48pm, Bob Stith wrote:
Jimmy, I am so sorry about your experiences with churches that do not demonstrate redemptive love. I can assure you there are many SBC churches that are caring and compassionate about the issue of homosexuality.
There are also some who can give you the help for which you have expressed a need.
The church today often finds itself in a difficult place in speaking about sin period. When I pastored I addressed the issue of divorce several times. Some people were angry and some didn’t come back.
But some of us listened to the sermons over again and felt that they were intentionally redemptive. Divorce is a huge problem and it will never get better if we can’t speak about it.
Admittedly we pastors can sometimes come across as harsh and condemning and certainly we can all work on that.
Please don’t let the frailty of man keep you from experiencing the fulness of Christ.
in Christ,
Bob Stith
23 On Aug 3rd, 2007, at 1:58pm, Bob Stith wrote:
Jimmy, Just a couple more comments.
Regardless of what some may say, I have many, many friends who have walked away from homosexuality. They are not repressed, delusional or living in some alternate reality. They are very much at peace with what God has done in their lives.
From my first experience with many of these men and women I was convinced that by and large they were the most Christ like, joyful and loving Christians I knew.
As with any group that isn’t universally true but it certainly has been my experience.
It can be done. Please stay in touch.
In Christ,
Bob Stith
24 On Aug 3rd, 2007, at 2:07pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Bob Stith says
“Regardless of what some may say, I have many, many friends who have walked away from homosexuality.”
However, more often than not these people are professional “ex-gays” who either make a full time living being “ex-gay” or they have some other professional steak in being “ex-gay”.
There are not many people who actually change their sexual orientation. I have never met one in 45 years. Including folks that tried shock therapy and other conversion therapies. It does not work. It’s snake oil.
That is a myth that “Change is possible.” Ask one of them what they mean by “change” and you will see it’s not becoming heterosexual.
You would do better Jimmy to stay away from people selling false notions and find a place that accepts you as you are.
Dan Valdes
25 On Aug 4th, 2007, at 8:50am, Rev. Steve Jacobson wrote:
Jimmy:
Yes, you can go to the United Church of Christ or United Methodist church and find a congregation that will affirm your homosexuality. But you could go all the way and become a Unitarian. They affirm everything.
The Bible authorizes sex only within the bonds of marriage and the only marriage God ever endorsed was heterosexual. Someone says, “Well. that’s not fair to gays because they can’t get married.” True. But I also know heterosexuals who never married, and they chose celibacy because the Bible forbids sex outside of marriage.
Remember, you will not stand before a UCC or UMC pastor once you die. Paul says, “We must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”
May God guide your decision. Seek Him.
26 On Aug 6th, 2007, at 11:25am, Pastor Rich Allcorn wrote:
Dear Jimmy:
Yes, you can be saved. In fact, if you’ve prayed that prayer ... YOU “ARE” SAVED.
The first thing you’ve got to do is to “lose that tag”. You’re not gay. “Gay” means happy. You’re obviously not happy right now as you’re working to resolve this issue. And you’re not “queer”, which means strange and peculiar. You’re dealing with something that you need God’s help to overcome. That problem is important to Him, because it’s important to “you”.
I encourage you to “not” attend a church that accepts the homosexual lifestyle. They’re not embracing the Word of God. You want to go somewhere where they embrace the Word of God, and practice it. Then, you’ll find that they will love you and help you to find the answers to overcome this. This is a “Bible"-based church. THAT is what you need.
I wish you the best, and will be praying for you.
27 On Aug 6th, 2007, at 11:52am, Pastor Rich Allcorn wrote:
... and for Dan Valdes: in response to be “being closed-minded”, I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with you ... I “am” closed-minded on this subject. God’s Word does not change ... for you, Dan, or me, or anybody else. It is unchangeable. This is not a democracy. We don’t “vote” on how God is going to do things ... so if HE doesn’t like it, and HE says it’s wrong, I really have no option to be open-minded about any other way. The Bible says when you continue in that lifestyle that God gives you over to a “depraved mind” ... I’d just as soon NOT go there.
But He loves “you” too, just like Jimmy. Dan, you don’t have to stay that way. It “IS” a choice.
28 On Aug 6th, 2007, at 12:19pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Pastor Rich Allcom,
You state: “God’s Word does not change ... for you, Dan, or me, or anybody else. It is unchangeable.”
Are you familiar with “Malokois” and “Arsenokoitai”?
Can you share with us the meanings of those words?
29 On Aug 6th, 2007, at 12:40pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Pastor Rich Allcom declares “You want to go somewhere
where they embrace the Word of God, and practice it.”
But he is saying that from a very ego centric point of view.
Is that to say that the celebration of the mass is apostasy? Are those that believe the apostle’s creed not part of the universal church? What makes him so self assured, has he never been wrong about something before, have scholars, in particular Biblical ones never been wrong before?
30 On Aug 6th, 2007, at 1:04pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Pastor Rich says “Dan, you don’t have to stay that way. It “IS” a choice.”
Do you think by now (45 years into it) that I WOULD have changed if I COULD have changed? I spent untold years as self-loathing homosexual.
Finally I decided to be happy. Life is too short for self-loathing.
The Jesus I know would not make me gay and then condemn me the way you do. I wonder Pastor Rich, just what makes you so holy? Are you without blemish?
I have lived with all kinds of incentives to be straight but it doesn’t work that way Pastor Rich, and I wonder exactly why you seem to think it does.
What is your experience with the issue?
31 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 10:40am, Bob Stith wrote:
On Aug 3rd, 2007, at 2:07pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Some of the people I’ve known do lead ministries. They do so not because they’re making big money – the leadership of some pro-gay groups make more money than most of the ex-gay ministries put together – but because they want to share with others the help they’ve gotten. Unfortunately they could make more money in the secular world because by and large the church doesn’t support these ministries. Dan this is an unfair attack.
32 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 10:54am, Bob Stith wrote:
On Aug 6th, 2007, at 12:19pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dan I assume you’re talking about the attempts to dismiss Paul’s use of “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” by arguing that Paul more or less invented the terms. The argument is that “malakoi” was not a technical term meaning homosexuality and that “arsenokoitai” was not used in any other extant Greek texts earlier than 1 Corinthians.
However “malakoi” was generally understood to mean the “soft” or “effeminate” man in a homosexual relationship. It was also widely used in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the “passive” partner.
“Arsenokoitai” is used in the Septuagint in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. It is also used in Rabbinic texts to refer to homosexual intercourse. Paul would have been familiar with this so it really is disingenuous to argue that he invented the word or didn’t mean it in the sense we understand it today.
33 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 1:56pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Bob said that was an “unfair attack” to report that the majority of those involved as “ex-gays” are “professional ex-gays” but it is reality. I am not sure why he thinks that the truth is an attack but I didn’t intend for it to be felt as an attack, simply an informed rebuttal to the myths the “ex-gay” industry is promulgating in the guise of religion.
You can’t pray the gay away and those that say you can are misleading you for their own political or professional or psychological purposes, in my opinion.
Again, I have NEVER met ANYONE who has changed sexual orientation. I know several failed attempts. The notion of changing from gay to straight is a myth.
34 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 2:00pm, Bob Stith wrote:
Dan, you say first that not many change and then that change doesn’t work – that it is snake oil. I’ll leave aside the contradictions here and point out a couple of things. You say that you’ve never met one. Honestly I have to question that. I’ve heard people say that they’ve never met a gay person.
This statement assumes they will somehow know if they are in the presence of a gay person. Secondly, if each person is allowed to make their own definition of what gay or ex-gay means then all we have to do is move our circle if someone threatens our definition.
In 13 years experience with these groups I’ve never known of a group which practiced shock therapy. That isn’t to say it hasn’t happened (see comments on “I’ve never met an ex-gay). It is simply saying that if that has happened, it was an aberration and not something that any ministry I’ve ever known has practiced. In talking to hundreds of ex-gays I’ve never heard of one who had this experience.
35 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 2:18pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
I didn’t intend to dismiss St. Paul as inventing the word but the truth is that those Greek words don’t mean homosexual person as we understand gay persons today.
Yes “malakoi” means soft and is even used to describe cloth as soft.
To say it’s a passive gay male seems a bit of a stretch of bias against us. That sounds a lot like Greek and Roman machismo to me. Those cultures permitted dominance in male to male sex but didn’t hold the same esteem for the receptive participant. Usually this was a junior person or a slave boy.
Certainly you don’t hold that same position, I suppose.
And for that to be correct, you would have to let the active gay partner off the hook. I doesn’t add up to me. You can’t get past sex in this argument to the deeper reality of relationships. Being gay is not just about having sex. People with discernment understand this.
I don’t see why you are so attached to your biases.
36 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 2:59pm, Dan Valdes wrote:
Dear Bob,
The person I know who underwent shock therapy did so voluntarily He did it due to his own self-loathing and internal motivation to change.
He married, had three children but ultimately left his wife and has now settled down into a gay relationship at age 48.
That was the extent of his desire to change. First extreme therapy, then living a lie and finally arriving at self acceptance on his journey. This is one of many.
That’s why I say its snake oil. People can be REALLY motivated to be heterosexual but some of us simply are not. If that extreme therapy coupled with all kinds of Christian therapy and prayer didn’t change this person, what in the world would? And at the end of the day, shouldn’t we be true to our nature?
37 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 8:28pm, Bob Stith wrote:
Dan, you said “And at the end of the day, shouldn’t we be true to our nature?”
Paul says we are by nature children of wrath so I don’t know that being true to that nature is a good idea.
Scripture teaches that when Christ comes into our lives we have a new nature. However Paul also tells us that the flesh will always war against the spirit. It is our responsibility to discern and crucify the longings of the flesh.
That is true for all of us regardless of what sin or temptation we deal with. Sometimes doing what the Bible calls sin can seem like the most natural thing in the world. So it is dangerous to go by our feelings.
38 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 8:41pm, Bob Stith wrote:
Dan said “but it is reality. I am not sure why he thinks that the truth is an attack but I didn’t intend for it to be felt as an attack, simply an informed rebuttal to the myths the “ex-gay” industry is promulgating in the guise of religion.”
Dan, my point was that you set the parameters for what is truth, what is “informed” and it seems to be a moving target. As I said, you first said “not many change” and then “change is a myth.
I didn’t see the truth as an attack. I simply felt that you were dismissing the experiences of people I know to be genuine and truthful.
You may not like their experience but I do think it is an attack when you in effect call them liars or deceivers.
Would it not be better to simply say “I don’t see it that way” or “that hasn’t been my experience” rather than infer that those with whom you disagree are promulgating myths or peddling snake oil?
39 On Aug 7th, 2007, at 8:55pm, Bob Stith wrote:
Re: “malakoi”
First of all, I said that that usage was common in Hellenistic Greek in that sense, not that I agreed with it. I was making the point that using the word in that sense was not unknown in the Greek world.
But I think “arsenokoitai” is the more pertinent word. Paul used it in light of its usage in the Septuagint. As you probably know this was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The Old Testament words understood to be referring to homosexuality were translated as “arsenokoitai.”
Dan, this isn’t a bias. It is a matter of translation. I’ve read pro-gay theologians who acknowledge this is what the passage says. Their approach is to simply dismiss the importance of it. But they don’t deny that this is what it says.
40 On Aug 9th, 2007, at 7:20am, Dan Valdes wrote:
Bob Stith said regarding what the “ex-gay” industry calls “change” ..."Would it not be better to simply say “I don’t see it that way” or “that hasn’t been my experience” rather than infer that those with whom you disagree are promulgating myths or peddling snake oil?”
and I would have to agree in as much as if someone who was not on a payroll (ie.. Exodus, Focus on the Family, etc..) or engaged in an “ex-gay” ministry or conversion therapy or on the lecture circuit...yes I would agree but it’s the almost circus-like atmosphere that surrounds the “professional ex-gays” that draw the snake oil comment.
They are selling a false notion that you can change your sexuality through counseling and prayer and that is largely and scientifically unfounded. It seems politically driven more than faith based, in my opinion and experience.
41 On Aug 10th, 2007, at 10:17am, MODERATOR wrote:
While this is some what off topic for this thread, an article which may apply to Comment # 1 by James McClintock has recently been posted to ERLC.com:
Cohabitation Confusion
Comments related to that subject would be appropriate on that page.